Kindly point to the line in the Constitution where it says that. [natural born Citizen = one that is born on US soil to 2 USA citizen parentS]
Those of us who have thought this through have come to realize that the Constitution did not fail to unambiguously provide a singular definite meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen as many have claimed. To the contrary, to know the exact meaning of those words only requires the Constitution itself and basic logic. One need not look elsewhere to lay this question to rest.
The Constitution may not tell us explicitly the definition of natural born Citizen, but, by its very phraseology, it very explicitly tells us that natural born Citizen cannot simply be the same as "born citizen."
It is absurd beyond dispute to claim that the founders would have vainly or incompetently inserted a superfluous, meaningless word into one of the primary sections of such a painstakingly deliberate document, one of our country’s very own birth documents, our Constitution. If they had meant to allow the broader category of "born citizen" they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly must exclude certain types of mere "born citizens."
At the time the Constitution was being written Alexander Hamilton brought forth the suggestion that the presidency be limited to only born Citizens. Although Hamilton’s plan was never an official proposal, the founders most certainly did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, no doubt often down to the appropriateness of individual words. And “natural born Citizen” versus Hamilton’s “born Citizen” most certainly was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen” as urged by John Jay.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. — John Jay
To be merely born a citizen was not considered enough of barrier against a possible presidential aspirant with a strong foreign allegiance. For a modern example of how this has been ignored and perverted, just consider the so-called anchor baby, who, though born here, may likely be raised in a foreign land by parents neither of whom have taken an oath of sole (or any) allegiance to our Constitution. It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many anti-American “progressives” and their low-information, useful idiot brethren would have us believe just that.
Who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens who naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature at birth, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.
The phrase means exactly what it states, a Citizen at birth according to Natural Law, i.e., the law of nature. And what is important about the "law of nature"? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia and it simply means that the laws of nature are unchangeable. So you see, congress cannot declare a person a natural born Citizen, because no one can change the definition - it's immutable.
The idea that someone born to a citizen mother and a foreign father and/or born in a foreign land (that claims birthright citizenship which we recognize) would somehow still meet the nbC clause is ludicrous. Such a mixed allegiance hybrid is a U.S. citizen not by Natural Law, but by statutory law per the Immigration and Nationality Act (else being born equally a citizen of three countries, such a person must absurdly be a natural born Citizen of three countries at once).
By blood and by dirt – and the anti-American, criminal identity fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.
Unfortunately the Constitution did not clearly define it, but the founders based it on Vattel’s Law of Nations - In book one chapter 19,§ 212 Of the citizens and natives :-
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
In the April 2008 senate resolution 511, it was ‘resolved’ that McCain, born to American parentS on an American military base, is a nbc.
Congress had tried several times to change the definition of nbc (from Vatell’s definition to something different) but failed every time. Why the need to change it? Because they know nbc means one born in the country of parents who are citizens, thus making Obama and the like ineligible to be POTUS!
4 supreme court cases had ruled on this - nbc is a citizen born in the country of parents who are citizens!
Do your own due diligence.
We repeat it because it is the truth.
You claim that we repeat it to make it true, when in fact you refuse to seek the truth; you would rather accuse us of making it up.